Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Woodcock-Johnson III:
Reports, Recommendations, and Strategies
by
Nancy Mather, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
Lynne E. Jaffe, Ph.D.
“Tests do not think for themselves, nor do they directly communicate with patients. Like a
stethoscope, a blood pressure gauge, or an MRI scan, a psychological test is a dumb tool, and the
worth of the tool cannot be separated from the sophistication of the clinician who draws
inferences from it and then communicates with patients and professionals” (p. 153) (Meyer et al.,
2001).
This reference book is intended to serve as a resource for evaluators using the Woodcock-
Johnson III (WJ III) Cognitive (COG) and/or Achievement (ACH) tests in educational or clinical
settings (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Its central purpose is to assist
practitioners in preparing and writing psychological and educational reports for individuals from
preschool through post-secondary school. The book is divided into four sections.
The first section presents material related to use and interpretation of the WJ III. The
clusters and tests are described, sample test items are presented, and the fine points of
administration of all of the tests are reviewed. An overview of the WJ III scores and interpretive
information is provided and a few sample forms are presented that may be used to summarize
test data. In addition to the examiner’s manuals, additional information on interpreting the WJ III
can be found in two sources: Essentials of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive
Abilities Assessment (Schrank, Flanagan, Woodcock, & Mascolo, 2001) and Essentials of
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Assessment (Mather, Wendling, & Woodcock,
2001).
The second section presents diagnostic reports that illustrate applications of the WJ III in
both educational and clinical settings. These diagnostic reports depict a variety of learning
problems in individuals from preschool to post-secondary level. Information obtained from other
diagnostic instruments is integrated into several of the sample reports to aid practitioners in
interpreting the WJ III when used in combination with other assessment instruments as well as
when used as the sole measure. Many different styles and formats of reports are presented.
The third section provides a wide variety of educational recommendations.
Recommendations are provided for oral language, and the achievement areas of reading, written
language, mathematics, and knowledge/content. Additional recommendations are provided for
areas such as memory, attention, behavior management, social skills/self-esteem, and for
students with sensory impairments.
The last section, Strategies, contains summaries, arranged alphabetically, of methods and
techniques that were included in the recommendations or the diagnostic reports. These
summaries may be attached to a report so that general or special education teachers, educational
therapists, or parents may implement the recommended procedure.
Section I: WJ III Descriptive and Interpretive Information
Introduction
Organization of the WJ III Cognitive Factors, Clusters, and Tests
Organization of the WJ III Achievement Clusters and Tests
Overview of the Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Broad and Narrow Abilities and Test Requirements
Overview of the Tests of Achievement: Broad and Narrow Abilities and Test Requirements
Example Items for the WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Standard Battery
Example Items for the WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Extended Battery
Example Items for the WJ III Tests of Achievement: Standard Battery
Example Items for the WJ III Tests of Achievement: Extended Battery
Hierarchy of WJ III Score Levels and Interpretative Information
Explanation of WJ III Scores and Interpretive Levels
Level 1: Qualitative
Level 2: Level of Development
W Scores
Age Equivalents
Grade Equivalents
Level 3: Degree of Proficiency
Relative Proficiency Index
Cognitive-Academic Language Proficiency
Age/Grade Profiles
Level 4: Comparison with Peers
Percentile Ranks
Standard Scores
Z Scores
Standard Error of Measurement
Discrepancy Terminology
Sample Statements for Reporting Scores
Score Levels Reported in Combination
Level of Development
Proficiency
Peer Comparison
Discrepancies
Tips for Interpretation
Test Comparisons and Error Pattern Analysis
Average Grade Placement for Age Score Equivalents and Classification Labels
Sample Score Forms
Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Clusters/Tests Score Profile
Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Achievement: Clusters/Tests Score Profile
Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Cluster Descriptions and Scores
Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Achievement: Cluster Descriptions and Scores
Bell Curve Cluster/Test Comparison Chart
Developmental Band Profile Worksheet--WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities
Instructional Zone Profile Worksheet--WJ III Tests of Achievement
WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Standard Score/Percentile Rank Profiles--Tests
WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Standard Score/Percentile Rank Profiles--Factors &
Clusters
WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Standard Score/Percentile Rank Profiles--Clinical
Clusters and Tests
WJ III Tests of Achievement: Standard Score/Percentile Rank Profiles--Tests
WJ III Tests of Achievement: Standard Score/Percentile Rank Profiles--Clusters
Organization of the WJ III Cognitive Factors, Clusters, and Tests
Category/Factor Standard Battery Extended Battery Verbal Comprehension General Information Visual-Auditory Learning Retrieval Fluency Spatial Relations Picture Recognition Sound Blending Auditory Attention Concept Formation Analysis-Synthesis Visual Matching Decision Speed
General Intellectual Ability (Std. & Ext.)
Numbers Reversed Memory for Words Verbal Comprehension Concept Formation
Intellectual Ability
Brief Intellectual Ability
Visual Matching Verbal Ability (Std & Ext) Verbal Comprehension General Information
Visual-Auditory Learning Retrieval Fluency Spatial Relations Picture Recognition Sound Blending Auditory Attention
Thinking Ability (Std & Ext)
Concept Formation Analysis-Synthesis
Visual Matching Decision Speed
Cognitive Performance
Cognitive Efficiency (Std & Ext) Numbers Reversed Memory for Words Comprehension-Knowledge Verbal Comprehension General Information Long-Term Retrieval Visual-Auditory Learning Retrieval Fluency Visual-Spatial Thinking Spatial Relations Picture Recognition Auditory Processing Sound Blending Auditory Attention Fluid Reasoning Concept Formation Analysis-Synthesis Processing Speed Visual Matching Decision Speed
CHC Factors
Short-Term Memory Numbers Reversed Memory for Words Sound Blending [Sound Awareness] Phonemic Awareness Incomplete Words Numbers Reversed
Clinical Clusters
Working Memory Auditory Working Memory
Numbers Reversed Auditory Attention Broad Attention Auditory Working Memory Pair Cancellation Retrieval Fluency Decision Speed Cognitive Fluency Rapid Picture Naming Concept Formation Planning Executive Processes Pair Cancellation Visual-Auditory Learning–Del. Delayed Recall Story Recall–Del. (ACH) General Information Knowledge Academic Knowledge (ACH)
Organization of the WJ III Achievement Clusters and Tests
Areas Clusters STANDARD BATTERY EXTENDED BATTERY
Letter-Word Identification Reading Fluency Broad Reading
Passage Comprehension Basic Reading Skills Letter-Word Identification Word Attack
Reading
Reading Comprehension Passage Comprehension Reading Vocabulary
Story Recall Picture Vocabulary Oral Language Understanding Directions Oral Comprehension
Listening Comprehension Understanding Directions Oral Comprehension Oral Language
Oral Expression Story Recall Picture Vocabulary
Calculation Math Fluency Broad Math
Applied Problems Calculation Math Calculation Skills Math Fluency
Math
Math Reasoning Applied Problems Quantitative Concepts
Spelling Writing Fluency Broad Written Language
Writing Samples Basic Writing Skills Spelling Editing
Writing Fluency
Written Language
Written Expression Writing Samples
Academic Knowledge Academic Knowledge Word Attack Phoneme/Grapheme
Knowledge Spelling of Sounds Letter-Word Identification Spelling Academic Skills Calculation Reading Fluency
Other Clusters
Academic Fluency Writing Fluency
Math Fluency Passage Comprehension Writing Samples Academic Applications Applied Problems Letter-Word Identification Reading Fluency Passage Comprehension Spelling Writing Fluency Writing Samples Calculation Math Fluency
Total Achievement
Applied Problems
Story Recall – Del. Sound Awareness Punctuation & Capitalization
Supplemental Tests/Scores
Handwriting
Overview of the Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Broad and Narrow Abilities and Test Requirements
Test
Broad CHC Factor Narrow CHC Ability
Stimuli Test Requirement Response
Test 1: Verbal Comprehension
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) Lexical knowledge Language development
Visual (pictures); Auditory (words)
Naming objects; knowledge of antonyms and synonyms; completing verbal analogies
Oral (word)
Test 2: Visual-Auditory Learning
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Associative memory
Visual (rebuses)— Auditory (words) in the learning condition; Visual (rebuses) in the recognition condition
Learning and recalling pictographic representations of words
Oral (sentences)
Test 3: Spatial Relations
Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv) Visualization Spatial relations
Visual (drawings) Identifying the subset of pieces needed to form a complete shape
Oral (letters) or motoric (pointing)
Test 4: Sound Blending
Auditory Processing (Ga) Phonetic coding: Synthesis
Auditory (phonemes)
Synthesizing language sounds (phonemes)
Oral (word)
Test 5: Concept Formation
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Induction
Visual (drawings) Identifying, categorizing, and determining rules
Oral (words)
Test 6: Visual Matching
Processing Speed (Gs) Perceptual speed
Visual (numbers) Rapidly locating and circling identical numbers from a defined set of numbers
Motoric (circling)
Test 7: Numbers Reversed
Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Working memory
Auditory (numbers)
Holding a span of numbers in immediate awareness while reversing the sequence
Oral (numbers)
Test 8: Incomplete Words
Auditory Processing (Ga) Phonetic coding: Analysis + closure
Auditory (words) Identifying words with missing phonemes
Oral (word)
Test 9: Auditory Working Memory
Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Working memory
Auditory (words, numbers)
Holding a mixed set of numbers and words in immediate awareness while reordering into two sequences
Oral (words, numbers)
Test 10: Visual-Auditory Learning–Delayed
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Associative memory
Visual (rebuses) in the recognition condition; Visual-auditory in the relearning condition
Recalling and relearning pictographic representations of words from 30 minutes to 8 days after initial presentation
Oral (sentences)
Test 11: General Information
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) General (verbal) information
Auditory (questions)
Identifying where objects are found and what people typically do with an object
Oral (sentences)
Test 12: Retrieval Fluency
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Ideational fluency
Auditory (directions only)
Naming as many examples as possible from a given category
Oral (words)
Test 13: Picture Recognition
Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv) Visual memory
Visual (pictures) Identifying a subset of previously presented pictures within a field of distracting pictures
Oral (words) or Motoric (pointing)
Test 14: Auditory Attention
Auditory Processing (Ga) Speech-sound discrimination Resistance to auditory interference
Auditory (words) Identifying orally -presented words amid increasingly intense background noise
Motor (pointing)
Test 15: Analysis-Synthesis
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) General sequential (deductive) reasoning
Visual (drawings) Analyzing puzzles (using a given code) to determine missing components
Oral (words)
Test 16: Decision Speed
Processing Speed (Gs) Semantic processing speed
Visual (pictures) Identifying and circling the two most conceptually similar pictures in a row
Motoric (circling)
Test 17: Memory for Words
Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Memory span
Auditory (words) Repeating a list of unrelated words in correct sequence
Oral (words)
Test 18: Rapid Picture Naming
Processing Speed (Gs) Naming facility
Visual (pictures) Recognizing objects, then retrieving and articulating their names rapidly
Oral (words)
Test 19: Planning
Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv) & Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Spatial scanning General sequential reasoning
Visual (drawings) Tracing a pattern without removing the pencil from the paper or retracing any lines
Motoric (tracing)
Test 20: Pair Cancellation
Processing Speed (Gs) Attention and concentration
Visual (pictures) Identifying and circling instances of a repeated pattern rapidly
Motoric (circling)
Overview of the Tests of Achievement: Broad and Narrow Abilities and Test Requirements Test
Curricular Area Narrow CHC Ability
Stimuli Test Requirement Response
Test 1: Letter-Word Identification
Reading (Grw) Reading decoding
Visual (text) Identifying printed letters and words
Oral (letter name, word)
Test 2: Reading Fluency
Reading (Grw) Reading speed
Visual (text) Reading printed statements rapidly and responding true or false (Yes or No)
Motoric (circling)
Test 3: Story Recall
Oral Expression (Gc) Language development Listening ability Meaningful memory
Auditory (text) Listening to and recalling details of stories
Oral (sentence)
Test 4: Understanding Directions
Listening Comprehension (Gc) Listening ability Language development
Auditory (text) Listening to a sequence of instructions and then following the directions
Motoric (pointing)
Test 5: Calculation
Mathematics (Gq) Math achievement Number fluency
Visual (numeric) Performing various mathematical calculations
Motoric (writing)
Test 6: Math Fluency
Mathematics (Gq) Math achievement
Visual (numeric) Adding, subtracting, and multiplying rapidly
Motoric (writing)
Test 7: Spelling Spelling (Grw) Spelling ability
Auditory (words) Spelling orally presented words
Motoric (writing)
Test 8: Writing Fluency
Writing (Grw) Writing speed
Visual (words with picture)
Formulating and writing simple sentences rapidly
Motoric (writing)
Test 9: Passage Comprehension
Reading (Grw) Reading comprehension Verbal (printed) language comprehension
Visual (text) Completing a sentence by giving the missing key word that makes sense in the context.
Oral (word)
Test 10: Applied Problems
Mathematics (Gq) Quantitative reasoning Math achievement Math knowledge
Auditory (questions); Visual (numeric, text)
Performing math calculations in response to orally presented problems
Oral
Test 11: Writing Samples
Writing (Grw) Writing ability
Auditory; Visual (text)
Writing meaningful sentences for a given purpose
Motoric (writing)
Test 12: Story Recall–Delayed
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Meaningful memory
Auditory (sentence)
Recalling previously-presented story elements
Oral (passage)
Test 13: Word Attack
Reading (Grw) Reading decoding Phonetic coding: Analysis & Synthesis
Visual (word) Reading phonically regular non-words
Oral (word)
Test 14: Picture Vocabulary
Oral Expression (Gc) Language development Lexical knowledge
Visual (picture) Identifying visual pictures Oral (word)
Test 15: Oral Comprehension
Listening Comprehension (Gc) Listening ability
Auditory (text) Completing an oral sentence by giving the missing key word that makes sense in the context
Oral (word)
Test 16: Editing
Writing Skills (Grw) Language development English usage
Visual (text) Identifying and correcting errors in written passages
Oral
Test 17: Reading Vocabulary
Reading (Grw/Gc) Verbal (printed) language Comprehension Lexical knowledge
Visual (word) Reading words and supplying synonyms and antonyms
Oral (word)
Test 18: Quantitative Concepts
Mathematics (Gq) Math knowledge Quantitative reasoning
Auditory (question); Visual (numeric, text)
Identifying math terms and formulae; Identifying number patterns
Oral (word)
Test 19: Academic Knowledge
General information (Gc) Science information Cultural information Geography achievement
Auditory (question); Visual ( text; picture)
Responding to questions about science, social studies, and humanities
Motoric (pointing), Oral (word, sentences)
Test 20: Spelling of Sounds
Spelling (Grw/Ga) Spelling ability Phonetic coding: Analysis & Synthesis
Auditory (letter, word)
Spelling letter combinations that are regular patterns in written English
Motoric (writing)
Test 21: Sound Awareness
Reading (Ga) Phonetic coding
Auditory (letter, word)
Providing rhyming words; deleting, substituting, and reversing parts of words to make new words
Oral (word)
Test 22: Punctuation & Capitalization
Writing (Grw) English usage
Auditory (question) Visual (letters, words)
Applying punctuation and capitalization rules
Motoric (writing)
Source: Tables 4-2 and 4-3 from: McGrew, K., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Technical Manual (pp. 51-54). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company. Reprinted with permission.
Hierarchy of WJ III Score Levels and Interpretative Information
Level Type of Information Basis Information and Scores Uses 1 Qualitative
(Criterion-Referenced)
Observations during testing and analysis of responses
Description of subject’s reaction to the test situation Performance on finely defined skills at the item content level
Appreciation of the subject’s behavior underlying obtained test score Prediction of the subject’s behavior and reactions in instructional situations Specific skill instructional recommendations
2 Level of Development (Norm-Referenced)
Sum of items scores Age or grade level in the norming sample at which the average is the same as the subject’s score
Raw score *Rasch Ability score (Example: Test or cluster W score) Age Equivalent (AE) Grade Equivalent (GE)
Reporting a subject’s level of development Basis for describing the implications of developmental strengths and weaknesses Basis for initial recommendations regarding instructional level and materials Placement decisions based on a criterion of significantly advanced or delayed development
3 Proficiency (Criterion-Referenced)
Subject’s distance on a *Rasch scale from an age or grade reference point *Equal interval units; preferred metric for statistical analyses
Quality of performance on reference tasks Rasch Difference score (Example: Test or cluster W DIFF) Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) CALP Level Instructional / Developmental Zone
Proficiency on tasks of average difficulty for peers Developmental level at which typical tasks will be perceived as easy by the subject Developmental level at which typical tasks will be perceived as very difficult by the subject Placement decisions based on a criterion of significantly good or poor proficiency
4 Relative Standing in a Group (Norm Referenced)
Relative position (A transformation of a difference score, such as dividing by the standard deviation of the reference group)
Standard scores Percentile ranks Z-scores
Communication of a subject’s competitive position among peers Placement decisions based on a criterion of significantly high or low standing
From: Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Examiner’s manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside
Publishing. Reprinted with permission (Table 5-1, p. 70).
Explanation of WJ III Scores and Interpretive Levels
Level 1: Qualitative
Qualitative information is obtained through observation of behavior during testing,
analysis of task demands and error analysis of responses to test items. Qualitative information,
though not a score, is a pivotal component for understanding and interpreting all scores obtained
by the student. Often a description of how a student obtained a particular score is as important as
the information provided by the score itself. Qualitative information is one of the critical
components of proper individualized assessment and is an integral part of the reporting and
interpretation of test results.
Task Analysis and Comparisons of Selected Tests
The basis for qualitative analysis of a test is generally two-fold: task analysis and error
pattern analysis. In task analysis, the evaluator analyzes the cognitive and academic demands of
the task, including the subskills that the student needs to perform the task proficiently. The
similarities and differences between the task demands, compared with the student’s demonstrated
proficiency (or lack of) on each task, suggest the type of task demands that are either easy or
difficult for the student. In error pattern analysis, the evaluator examines the errors the student
made and the strategy he or she used in doing the task (possibly in lieu of the necessary skills) to
discern the subskill(s) that have not been mastered.
Task analysis is frequently used to obtain information about a student’s skills and
abilities other than the ability that is the intended target of the test or cluster. A test is designed to
measure a certain ability, but at times, one recognizes through more detailed analysis that the
intended ability was not measured. As an example, the Working Memory cluster is intended to
measure the ability to hold information in immediate awareness while performing a mental
operation on it. Low scores on Auditory Working Memory and Numbers Reversed might, quite
reasonably, lead the evaluator to diagnose difficulties in working memory. Task analysis,
however, shows that both tests require the student to visualize numbers. Suppose that error
analysis of Auditory Working Memory showed errors only on repetition of numbers but not on
objects—a question should arise as to whether the problem is in memory or in the student’s
ability to visualize/work with numbers. That question can then be answered by checking
performance on other tests that require memory but no numbers, such as Memory for Words and
Visual-Auditory Learning. Visual Matching and Calculation would provide additional
information regarding facility with numbers. Task analysis and error pattern analysis, then, help
evaluators to obtain valuable information that may, or may not, require further investigation.
Level 2: Level of Development
Level 2 information is derived directly from the raw score. This information indicates the
level of development and is usually transformed to metrics that compare raw scores to age- or
grade-level groups.
W Scores
W scores are intermediate scores for test interpretation. These scores do not appear on the
computer printout only if the examiner chooses that option in Program Options. The W scale is a
special transformation of the Rasch ability scale and provides a common scale of equal-interval
measurement that represents both a person’s ability and the task difficulty. The W scale for each
test is centered on a value of 500, which has been set to approximate the average performance at
age 10 years, 0 months. The W score for any cluster is the average W score for the tests included
in the cluster. The W score is also used to plot the Age/Grade Profile, which illustrates
Development Zones on the WJ III COG and Instructional Zones on the WJ III ACH (see Level
3-Degree of Mastery). The W-scale is particularly useful for the measurement of growth and can
be considered a growth scale.
Age Equivalents
An age equivalent (AE) or age score, reflects the student’s performance in terms of the
age group in the norming sample in which the subjects’ median raw score is the same as the
student’s raw score. If half of the subjects of age 8-5 in the norming sample obtained a raw score
of 20 or greater, and half of the subjects of age 8-5 obtained a raw of 20 or less, then the raw
score of 20 is assigned the age equivalent of 8-5 (eight years, five months). All students,
regardless of age, who obtain a raw score of 20 will have an 8-5 age equivalent assigned as their
level of development. Age equivalents are expressed in years and months with a dash (-) as the
delimiter. The age scale starts at 2-0 on some tests and 4-0 on the other tests, and extends to the
age of peak median performance in the norming sample for each test.
GRADE EQUIVALENTS
A grade equivalent (GE) or grade score, reflects the student’s performance in terms of the
grade level in the norming sample at which the subject’s median raw score is the same as the
student’s raw score. For example, if half of the subjects in grade 3.6 in the norming sample
obtained a raw score of 20 or greater, and half of the subjects in grade 3.6 in the norming sample
obtained a raw score of 20 or less, then the raw score of 20 is assigned the grade equivalent of
3.6 (third grade, sixth month). All students, regardless of age, who obtain a raw score of 20 will
have a 3.6 grade equivalent assigned as their level of development. Grade equivalents are
expressed in grade and month with a decimal point (.) as the delimiter. The grade scale ranges
from <K.0 (below beginning kindergarten) to >18.0 (above beginning second year graduate
school).
Level 3: Degree of Proficiency
Level 3 information indicates the quality of a student’s performance on criterion tasks of
known difficulty levels when compared to an age or grade reference group.
Relative Proficiency Index (RPI)
The Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) predicts the level of mastery (quality of
performance) on tasks similar to the ones tested. It reflects the student’s expected percent of
proficiency for tasks that the reference or comparison group (age or grade) would perform with
90% proficiency. The RPI is recorded with the student’s expected percent of proficiency and the
comparison group’s 90% expected proficiency separated by a slash (/). The RPI is based upon
the W difference score, which depicts how far above or below a student’s performance is from
the average score for the reference group. For example, a +30 W score difference would result in
an RPI of 100/90, whereas a –30 W score difference would result in an RPI of 25/90. (For each
test, the W scale is centered on a value of 500, which has been set to approximate the average
performance of 10-year-olds.)
Using an age comparison group, if a child age 6-0, obtains an RPI of 50/90, it would
indicate that on tasks that the average child, age 6-0, performs with 90% proficiency, this child
only performs with 50% proficiency. Interpretation guidelines, paralleling Informal Reading
Inventory criteria, are: Independent Level (easy) 96/90 and above, Instructional Level (90/90),
and Frustration Level (difficult) 75/90 and below.
Test items do not increase in difficulty in equal intervals. The amount the difficulty level
increases from item to item varies. Within a test, a subset of items that represent a period of rapid
growth in a particular skill (e.g., basic reading skills between the ages of 5 and 15) will increase
in difficulty in relatively large increments. A subset of items that represent a period of slow or no
growth in a skill (e.g., basic reading skills between the ages of 15 and 25) will have smaller
increases in difficulty between items. The RPI shows the difference in item difficulty that the
individual can handle. Accordingly, at an age or grade level during which a skill is developing
rapidly, a relatively wide variation in scores (and proficiency) will occur, even within the
average range. Thus, a person could score within the average range, as long as his score falls
within the mid-range of the scores obtained by his age or grade peers. The difficulty level of his
or her highest correct item could, however, be considerably lower than the highest item correctly
answered by 50% of his age-or grade-peers. This discrepancy could indicate that although the
student obtained a score that is within the average range for his age/grade-peers, his actual
proficiency on the task is limited. The direction of the discrepancy (above or below 90%
proficiency) determines whether the student is more proficient or less proficient than expected.
The difficulty level of the items completed correctly determines by how much.
When interpreting the variety of score types provided by the WJ III, to consider that the
RPI and standard scores measure different aspects of performance. The RPI conveys how far
away the individual is from the reference group median and is unaffected by the standard
deviation. It displays the level of difficulty (qualitative) an individual can handle, versus his or
her standing in the reference group, (i.e., where the score falls in the continuum by others of the
same age or grade in the norming sample)(quantitative).
Table 1-1: Criterion-Referenced Interpretation of RPI Scores W Diff Values
Reported RPIs Proficiency Functionality Development Implications
+31 and above 100/90 very
advanced very advanced very advanced extremely easy
+14 to +30 98/90 to 100/90 advanced advanced advanced very easy
+7 to +13 95/90 to 98/90
average to advanced
within normal limits to advanced
age-appropriate to advanced easy
-6 to +6 82/90 to 95/90 average within normal
limits age-appropriate manageable
-13 to -7 67/90 to 82/90
limited to average
mildly impaired to within normal limits
mildly delayed to age-appropriate
difficult
-30 to –14 24/90 to 67/90 limited mildly impaired mildly delayed very difficult
-50 to -31 3/90 to 24/90 very limited moderately
impaired moderately delayed
extremely difficult
-51 and below
0/90 to 3/90 negligible severely impaired severely delayed impossible
Sample descriptive statements reflect a Fluid Reasoning W difference of -10 for a male subject.
Proficiency: “His fluid reasoning ability is limited to average...”
Functionality: “His fluid reasoning ability is mildly impaired to within normal limits…”
Developmental: “His fluid reasoning ability is mildly delayed to age-appropriate...”
Implications: “He will probably find age-level tasks requiring him to identify categories
and relationships among categories, make inferences, recognize and form concepts, and
draw conclusions difficult.”
Table 1-2: Instructional Interpretation of RPI Levels
RPI Instructional Level 96/90 and above Independent
76/90 to 95/90 Instructional 75/90 and below Frustration
Cognitive-Academic Language Proficiency (CALP).
A CALP score is provided for all of the tests that measure English language proficiency,
if this option is selected in the software. As with the RPI, the CALP level is based upon the W
score differences. Five CALP levels describe how the student will perform on English language
tasks when compared with others of the same age or grade. As illustrated in the table below, the
scores range from a CALP Level of 5 (Advanced), the student will find the language demands in
instructional situations to be very easy to a CALP Level of 1 (Negligible), the student will find
the language demands in instructional situations impossible to manage.
Table 1-3: CALP Levels, Implications, and Comparisons to RPI Levels
CALP Level
English Language Demands at Age or Grade Level
RPI
5 Advanced Very Easy 98/90 to 100/90 4-5 (4.5) Fluent to Advanced Easy 96/90 to 97/90
4 Fluent Manageable 82/90 to 95/90 3-4 (3.5) Limited to Fluent Difficult 68/90 to 81/90
3 Limited Very Difficult 34/90 to 67/90
2-3 (2.5) Very Limited to Limited
Very Difficult to Extremely Difficult 19/90 to 33/90
2 Very Limited Extremely Difficult 5/90 to 18/90
1-2 (1.5) Negligible to Very Limited
Extremely Difficult to Impossible 3/90 to 4/90
1 Negligible Impossible 9/90 to 2/90 Age/Grade Profiles
The Instructional Zone in the WJ III ACH and the Developmental Zone in the WJ III
COG are special applications of the RPI. These bands extend from -10 W score units (easy) to
+10 W score units (difficult). These bands display the range between an RPI of 96/90 (easy) to
an RPI of 75/90 (difficult). The student will find tasks that are below the lower point of the band
to be quite easy, and those above the higher point of the band to be quite difficult. The length of
these bands on the Age/Grade Profile indirectly reflects the rate of growth of the measured trait
in the population. Long bands are associated with a relatively slow rate of growth, whereas short
bands reflect relatively rapid growth. In a period of development when growth is rapid, the
Developmental or Instructional Zone bands will be quite narrow; in a period of development
when little growth occurs, the bands will be quite wide. For example, a narrow band for Letter-
Word Identification test indicates that growth is rapid at the student’s age or grade level, whereas
a wide band for Word Attack indicates that growth takes place slowly during that developmental
period.
The Age/Grade Profile displays the practical implications of the test or cluster scores (in
contrast to the statistical implications displayed by the SS/PR Profiles. The developmental and
instructional zones suggest at what level tasks will be easy for a person and at what level they
will be difficult and may be used to describe the student’s present level of functioning.
Level 4: Comparison with Peers
Level 4 information indicates relative standing in the group when compared to age or
grade peers.
Percentile Ranks (PR)
A percentile rank describes a student’s relative standing in a comparison group on a scale
of 1 to 99. The student’s percentile rank indicates the percentage of students from the
comparison group who had scores as low or lower than the student’s score. A student’s
percentile rank of 68 indicates that 68% of the comparison group had scores as low or lower than
the student’s score. Extended percentile ranks provide scores down to a percentile rank of one-
tenth (0.1) and up to a percentile rank of ninety-nine and nine-tenths (99.9). A student’s
percentile rank of 0.1 indicates that only 1 in 1000 students in a reference group would score as
low or lower. A student’s percentile rank of 99.9 indicates that 999 in 1000 students in a
reference group would score as low or lower.
Standard Scores (SS)
A standard score describes a student’s performance relative to the average performance
of the comparison group. It is based on a median or average score being assigned a value of 100,
with a standard deviation, an indication of the variability of scores in the population, assigned a
value of 15. The range of standard scores includes 1 to 200+.
Table 1-4: Classification of Standard Score and Percentile Rank Ranges
Standard Score Range Percentile Rank Range WJ III Classification 131 and above 98 to 99.9 Very Superior
121 to 130 92 to 97 Superior 111 to 120 76 to 91 High Average 90 to 110 25 to 75 Average 80 to 89 9 to 24 Low Average 70 to 79 3 to 8 Low
69 and below 0.1 to 2 Very Low
Z Score
A z is a standard score that has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. A (+) sign means that
the score is above the mean (e.g., +2.0 means two standard deviations above the mean) and a (-)
sign means that the score is below the mean (e.g., -2.0 means two standard deviations below the
mean.
Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)
The standard error of measurement is an estimate of the amount of error attached to an
individual’s standard score, or how much to expect a person’s obtained score to vary from his or
her true score if the person were administered the same test repeatedly. The WJIII provides the
unique SEM associated with each possible score, rather than average SEMs based on entire
samples, a feature made possible by the use of Rasch scaling.
DISCREPANCY TERMINOLOGY
Actual SS
The student’s obtained standard score on a cognitive or achievement cluster.
Predicted SS
The predicted achievement score is the mean score obtained by others of the same age or
grade in the norm sample who had the same level of cognitive ability. The cognitive ability score
used as the basis for this prediction is derived from the student’s performance on the first seven
tests of the Tests of Cognitive Abilities, weighted differentially, according to the importance of
different cognitive abilities at different age or grade levels. It is this score that is used in
computing discrepancies. Thus, the WJ III predicted score is developmentally sensitive.
Intra-ability discrepancies are based on the difference between the student’s obtained
standard score and the average of his or her standard score on the other cognitive, achievement,
or cognitive and achievement clusters.
Standard Score Difference (SS DIFF)
The SS DIFF score represents the Predicted SS subtracted from the Actual SS.
Discrepancy Percentile Rank (PR)
For the ability/achievement discrepancies, this score represents the percent of the WJ III
norm sample that had an SS DIFF of this magnitude. For the intra-ability discrepancies, this
score represents the percent of the WJ III norm sample of the same age or grade, and with the
same predicted score as the student’s, that obtained an ability score the same as, or lower, than
the student’s.
Discrepancy Standard Deviation (SD)
The Discrepancy SD score reports the SS DIFF divided by the standard error of estimate
(SEE), the appropriate standard deviation statistic for this application. This statistic is derived
from the distributions of SS DIFF found in the WJ III norm sample. For the ability/achievement
discrepancies, the score represents the number of standard deviations the SS DIFF is from the
Predicted SS. For the intra-ability discrepancies, this score represents the number of standard
deviations the SS DIFF is from the average of his or her other abilities.
Sample Statements for Reporting Scores
These statements provide examples of ways to describe various test scores in reports.
Words in brackets will vary, depending on the cognitive or achievement test or ability being
discussed.
Score Levels Reported in Combination Lara demonstrated low average to average performance on [the WJ III Spelling test], with a grade equivalent of early grade 3, and an RPI of 62/90. Kara’s [Broad Written Language] score bridged the low to low average ranges (SS 77-83) with a grade equivalent of early grade 3 and an RPI of 75/90. When average grade-peers have 90% success, Kara will have 75% success on similar tasks. Tara’s CALP Level of 5, as well as her RPI of 99/90 suggest that she will find the language
demands in instructional situations to be very easy.
Level of Development (Grade Equivalent, Age Equivalent) Dick’s scores indicate that his level of functioning on [paired associate learning and retrieval tasks] is typical compared to grade-mates. Maria’s obtained grade score on the [Broad Reading cluster] was approximately beginning third grade (GE=3.1). The number of items Marcos answered correctly is comparable to the average student in early grade 7. Test results indicate that Diane’s performance is comparable to that of average eight-year-olds. On [phonemic awareness tasks], Felicia scored similarly to students in mid-grade 2. Sally is a fourth-grader who currently performs at the first-grade level in [math computation]. Margaret scored at mid-second grade level on [the Broad Reading cluster]. Lucas’s instructional level for [sight word reading] was mid-grade 3.
Proficiency (RPI, Developmental and Instructional Zones, CALP) Mark’s level of proficiency on [the Broad Mathematics cluster] was in the Limited range (RPI: 66/90). Sam’s RPI of 21/90 on the [Phoneme/Grapheme cluster] indicates that on similar tasks, in which the average fourth-grade student would demonstrate 90% proficiency, Sam would demonstrate 21% proficiency. Sam’s knowledge of [phoneme-grapheme correspondence and spelling patterns] is very limited. Jason’s RPI on the [Verbal Comprehension test] was 75/90, suggesting that when average age-peers have 90% success on similar [expressive vocabulary and reasoning tasks], Jason will have 75% success. This score places his proficiency at the lower end of the instructional range. Although Nicholas’s obtained standard score on [the Mathematics Reasoning cluster] is within the average range for seventh-grade students overall, his RPI (45/90) indicates that he will have more difficulty than most of his grade-peers in [math problem solving]. Manuel is predicted to demonstrate 2% mastery on [short-term memory tasks] that average age-peers would perform with 90% mastery (RPI: 2/90), indicating that his functioning in this area is severely impaired. Renee’s RPI of 98/90 on [Visual-Spatial Thinking] signifies advanced proficiency. When
average age-peers demonstrate 90% accuracy on similar tasks, Renee’s expected accuracy would be approximately 98%. Even though Sheila’s standard scores on both [Broad Reading and Broad Mathematics] are in the low range compared to other fifth-graders, her proficiency in [reading] (RPI 9/90) is markedly lower than her proficiency in [mathematics] (RPI 32/90). Ben’s performance on [Retrieval Fluency (RPI 90/90) and Rapid Picture Naming (RPI 88/90)] indicate that he has no difficulty with [rapid retrieval of familiar words from long-term memory]. David’s RPI of 45/90 in [Short-Term Memory] represents a mild delay in the skills necessary for similar classroom tasks, such as [repeating a set of instructions to himself]. His expected success in doing so would be 45% compared with his classmates’ 90%. On a similar classroom task, [reading one or two sentences and filling in the missing word], Bryn’s proficiency would be within normal limits (RPI 82/90). Although Luz scored considerably higher in [Quantitative Concepts] than in [Calculation and Fluency], her RPIs of 70/90 and 40/90 indicate that she will experience frustration in dealing with grade-level [math concepts and number relationships]. Geraldo’s RPI of 84/90 indicates that his [general world and academic knowledge] is comparable to that of his grade-peers. Developmental and Instructional Zones The Developmental Zone on the WJ III COG indicates that Martha will find tasks involving verbal comprehension to be easy and mid-grade 4 and frustrating at beginning grade 6. The WJ III Age/Grade Profile indicates that appropriate instructional materials for teaching Jesse [word attack skills] would be early grade 2, and for [sight vocabulary and reading comprehension], early grade 3. Stan’s instructional zone indicates that he will find [reading] tasks to be easy at the beginning second-grade level and very difficult at the beginning third-grade level. Ted’s instructional zone on the WJ III Age/Grade Profile indicates that instructional materials in [basic writing skills] at beginning fourth-grade level will be very easy for Ted while materials at mid-fifth grade level will be very difficult. Appropriate instructional materials for June in basic mathematics and skills would range from beginning fifth-grade level [easy] to late fifth-grade [instructional]. Materials at the early sixth-grade level would be frustrating for her. Jared’s performance in [Academic Applications] matches the median score of college sophomores on the tests of this cluster, suggesting that Jared would find instructional materials at
the college sophomore level appropriately challenging. Cognitive-Academic Language Proficiency Kai met the criteria for fluency in all tests of oral language skills (CALP 4 to 4.5). He should find the English language demands of instruction at the twelfth-grade level manageable to easy. Ingrid’s CALP level of 2 on [the Verbal Ability cluster] indicates that she is very limited in [expressive vocabulary knowledge] and is likely to find the language demands of instruction related to English vocabulary at 4th grade level extremely difficult. Ruoli’s performance on the WJ III Oral Language cluster (CALP level 1) suggests negligible functioning in [comprehension and expression of] English. Managing academic instruction in English, appropriate for 10-year-old native speakers, will be impossible for him.
Peer Comparison SS ranges Based on his standard score confidence bands, Jacob demonstrated performance commensurate with his age-peers in [oral language]. On the WJ III Total Achievement cluster, Bill’s overall performance was in the Average range. According to grade norms, Sam’s level of achievement on the [Broad Reading cluster] falls in the Average range. Juan’s achievement in [basic writing] skills is low average for his grade. Test results indicate that all of Jesse’s [reading] abilities fall in the Low Average range when compared to grade-peers. Oscar demonstrated average ability to store [linguistic information] in memory and retrieve it later. Kata’s Average to High Average score on [Analysis-Synthesis] reflects her ability to [use deductive, linear logic for solving novel problems]. Fran’s performance varied on the tests comprising the [Executive Processes] cluster. Her standard scores on the [Planning and Pair Cancellation] tests indicate a high average level of ability when compared with her typical grade peers, whereas her performance was in the low average range on the [Concept Formation] test. George’s performance on the [Knowledge] cluster fell in the Low Average to Average range. Max’s [writing fluency, formulating and writing simple sentences quickly] bridges the High
Average to Superior ranges (SS ± 1 SEM = 115-123). TJ demonstrated a relative weakness in [confrontation naming], scoring in the low average range on the [Rapid Picture Naming] test. Nancy’s overall [math] abilities, as represented by the [Broad Math] cluster score, are in the low range with no significant discrepancies among the component tests of [Calculation, Math Fluency, and Applied Problems]. When Mr. Garibaldi was compared with the graduate school sample, his Comprehension-Knowledge factor score remained competitive (SS 114). When compared with adults his age, Ms. Lancaster performed well within the Average range in each of the clinically relevant test clusters. In contrast, her scores decreased to the Low range when compared with the graduate school sample. Lynne’s Low to Low Average performance on [Applied Problems] reflects her apparent [confusion with math concepts]. Mariah demonstrated Superior [reasoning] skills, [using inductive and deductive logic to form concepts and solve problems using newly learned procedures (Fluid Reasoning: SS 127, PR 96)]. The WJ III SS/PR Profile indicates that Earl scored significantly higher on the [Broad Reading cluster] than he did on the [Broad Mathematics cluster]. Albeit in the Average range, Mariah’s [visual-spatial] abilities appear to be significantly less well developed than her [reasoning/problem solving]. The separation of the confidence bands was [three] times the width of the SEM, whereas one is considered significant. Rhia’s standard score of 125 ± 5 indicates that her performance on the WJ III Broad Written Language cluster is in the Superior range. Mary obtained a Broad Reading standard score of 98 ± 6. This score is within the Average range. Martha scored in the Superior range on the Broad Reading cluster (SS ± 1 SEM: 119-131. Tom’s score on the Spelling test (SS ± 1 SEM: 98-110) was significantly higher than his score on the Writing Samples test (SS ± 1 SEM: 75-86). Although Mark scores in the Low Average range on the Broad Mathematics cluster, his performance on the Calculation test (High Average) was significantly higher than his performance on the Applied Problems test (Very Low). The statistically significant score discrepancy between the tests comprising the [Auditory Processing cluster (Sound Blending SS 125-132 vs. Auditory Attention SS 112-117)] are not considered to be educationally significant and do not warrant concern.
Percentile Ranks Kay’s percentile rank of 99.5 on the [Basic Math Skills cluster] indicates that only 5 out of 1,000 individuals of her age would have a score as high or higher than hers. On the [Broad Mathematics cluster], Sara scored at the 25th percentile, within the lower limits of the Average range. Test results from the WJ III [Broad Mathematics cluster] indicated that Susan’s overall [math] achievement is in the Low Average range (20th percentile). Lawrence’s frustration with classroom [writing] tasks is understandable given his obtained percentile rank of 3 on [Writing Samples]. Among students of his age, only 3 of 100 scored as low or lower than he did on this test. Glenda obtained a [Broad Reading cluster] percentile rank of 8 (SS=78). On the [reading] tests, a significant difference existed between Ruth’s Low Average to Average performance on [Letter-Word Identification (PR ± 21-39)] and her Very Low to Low performance on [Passage Comprehension (PR ± 1-5)]. Bill’s group standing in [problem-solving] ability (PR: 2) is significantly lower than his [calculation] skill (PR: 89). Monica’s [reading] skills (98%ile) are significantly higher than her mathematics skills (10%ile). Angelica’s [Auditory Working Memory] score was in the low range, as low or lower than 94% of her grade-peers (PR 6). Z Scores The following z-score statements are offered for use with reporting results of Visual-Auditory Learning—Delayed and Story Recall—Delayed. These particular z-scores represent the difference (if any) between a person’s delayed recall score and the delayed recall scores of others of his grade or age who had obtained the same score on the first administration of the tests.
Theo’s ability to recall key details in stories that had been read to him was equal to or better than 75% of his grade-peers (Story Recall, PR 75). His ability to retain this information and recall it later was significantly better (z-score = +1.57) than those whose initial performance was similar to his. Jesus performed in the low average range on a task requiring him to learn to associate words with a series of symbols. When asked to recall the words for the symbols a day later, he remembered about as many as would be predicted given his initial low performance (z-score = +0.3).
Gerald’s ability to recall key details of narrative information and associations between symbols and spoken words was in the average range. Compared with grade-peers whose initial scores were the same as his, after several hours, his retention of word-symbol associations was similar; his recall of narrative details, however, significantly exceeded that of his grade-peers (+1.75 standard deviations). Discrepancies Intra-Ability Discrepancies The following are examples of statements that can be used to describe Intra-Cognitive, Intra-Achievement, or Intra-Individual Discrepancies. Jeanne does not demonstrate a significant discrepancy among the [four achievement] clusters. When Bill’s [Comprehension-Knowledge] cluster score is compared to his average performance on the other six CHC factors, only 6 out of 100 students (PR:6) would obtain a score as low or lower than his. When Sally’s actual achievement score is compared to her predicted score, based upon the average of the other three achievement clusters, a significant discrepancy exists. Sally’s Discrepancy Percentile Rank indicates that 5% of the students of the same age and with the same predicted score would obtain a score as low or lower than hers.
On the Intra-Individual Discrepancies, only 1 in 1,000 grade-peers (PR: 99.9) with Lila’s same predicted [Broad Reading] score (the average of her other cluster scores) would obtain an actual [Broad Reading] score the same as or higher than hers. In [Broad Written Language], only 3% of students whose predicted scores were the same as Alex’s would obtain a standard score of 87 or lower. Of Philip’s grade-peers whose predicted standard scores were identical to his, only 2 out of 100 students would obtain a score as high or higher than his actual standard score of 115 in [Broad Reading] (Discrepancy Percentile Rank = 98). When D. J.’s [Broad Math] cluster standard score of 95 is compared to his average on the other three achievement clusters, only 1 out of 100 grade-peers with the same predicted score would have obtained a score as low or lower than he did (Discrepancy PR = 0.1; SD Diff = -3.26). Margaret evidences significant intra-individual strengths in [Auditory Processing and Phonemic Awareness] and weaknesses in [Processing Speed, Broad Reading, and Broad Math]. The likelihood of her age-peers with the same predicted score obtaining scores as high or higher than hers is [1% for Auditory Processing and 3% for Phonemic Awareness]. In her areas of weakness, the probability of obtaining scores as low or lower than hers, given the predicted scores, are [4% for Processing Speed and 3% for Broad Reading and Broad Math].
Ability/Achievement Discrepancies No significant discrepancies exist between Shirin’s General Intellectual Ability-Extended and her present academic performance. When Charlene’s General Intellectual Ability-Extended (GIA-Ext) score is compared to her achievement, significant discrepancies exist between the GIA-Ext and [Basic Reading Skills]. Only 2 out of 100 individuals with a predicted standard score of 105 would obtain a score of 75 or lower. When Jeff’s Predicted Achievement Standard Score of 81 is compared to his Actual Achievement Standard Score of 55, only 1 out of 100 students (Discrepancy Percentile Rank = 1) would obtain a score the same or lower. Current test results indicate that Spence has a significant discrepancy between his oral language abilities and his [reading] skills. When his Oral Language-Extended cluster (SS=104) is compared to his [Basic Reading Skills] (SS=65), and [Reading Comprehension] clusters (SS=74), only 1 and 2 out of 100 individuals, respectively, would obtain a score the same or lower. Based on her General Intellectual Ability-Standard and Oral Language scores, Gina’s [Broad Reading, Broad Math, and Math Calculation] scores are significantly below expectations. The WJ III provides predicted achievement scores for each academic area based on different weightings of seven cognitive abilities according to the student’s age. Gerald scored significantly lower than predicted in [Broad Reading (Standard Error of Estimate = −2.55), Basic Reading Skills (SEE = −1.61), and Broad Written Language (SEE = -1.60)]. When compared to his overall intellectual ability, Patrick’s achievement was significantly lower than predicted in [all areas of written language]. Jerome’s difficulties learning to [pronounce words and spell] are unpredicted given his advanced oral language abilities and superior phonemic awareness skills. Michael’s only significant Intra-Individual discrepancy was in [Fluid Reasoning], indicating a severe deficit in [abstract, logical reasoning], compared to his other abilities. A discrepancy of this magnitude is found in only 1% of students of his age. [Broad Reading, Math Calculation, and Academic Knowledge] were significantly lower than predicted, suggesting that Robert’s cognitive abilities are more advanced than his present levels of academic performance.
Tips for Interpretation
This section offers suggestions for qualitative interpretation of the information available
from the WJ III. Extensive and valuable information can be obtained from comparing a student’s
performance on various cognitive and achievement tests, based on similarities and differences in
task demands, and from exploration of error patterns in item responses. Frequently, task analysis
and error pattern analysis offer insights not obtainable from test scores alone regarding factors
contributing to the student’s difficulties and areas in need of further investigation.
The following test comparisons are not intended to be a complete or comprehensive
listing of all of the possible task comparisons among the WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and
Tests of Achievement. They are illustrations of the qualitative information an evaluator can
obtain from analysis at the individual test level. Both the table and the section that follows
exemplify comparisons and possible performance implications when a difference of significance
or probable significance exists between individual test scores within a cluster or between
clusters—and sometimes, when they are all low. Test Comparisons and Error Pattern Analysis,
organized into cognitive and academic abilities assessed by the WJ III, provides additional
suggestions for error pattern analysis.
When making test comparisons, consider scores that represent proficiency (RPI) as well
as standing among peers (standard scores). For each student, the evaluator is cautioned to
interpret the implications of the suggested test comparisons in the context of other test and
cluster scores from the WJ III as well as performance on additional tests, behavioral
observations, classroom performance, parent and teacher reports, and student self-perceptions.
The following table, Task Analysis and Comparisons of Selected Tests from the WJ III,
has five columns. Test Names simply lists the tests involved in the comparison. Similarities lists
the task demands or required subskills that the tests share. Differences, divided into two
columns, lists the task demands and required subskills that are not shared and, thus, are the basis
for the comparison. Possible Implications lists the implications of the test comparisons. The bold
print describes the possible relationship between/among the test scores. The test(s) listed on the
left side of the > symbol has the higher score(s); the test(s) to the right has the lower score(s).
The sentence below, in regular print, describes one or more possible reasons, related to the
student’s cognitive or academic abilities, for this pattern of performance. Each sentence begins
with three dots as a reminder that the phrase “If [A > B], consider …” is implied.
Table 1-5. Task Analysis and Comparisons of Selected Tests from the WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Tests of Achievement
Tests Similarities Differences Possible Implications: If this test pattern, consider… Picture Vocabulary Verbal Comprehension
Retrieval of single words from long-term storage
Retrieval of simple name (PV) Less linguistic complexity (PV)
Retrieval of words based on associations and reasoning (VC) More linguistic complexity (VC)
Picture Vocabulary > Verbal Comprehension or both low …limited breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge …difficulties with word retrieval Picture Vocabulary > Verbal Comprehension: …limited flexibility of word comprehension and usage
Retrieval Fluency Rapid Picture Naming Picture Vocabulary
Retrieval of single words from long-term storage
Retrieval of a specific word (RPN, PV) Time constraint (RF, RPN) Words are well-established in long-term storage (RF, RPN) Retrieval of words from a picture prompt (RPN, PV)
Broader choice of acceptable responses (RF) No time constraint (PV) Words are less familiar or not known (PV) Retrieval of words without a picture prompt (RF)
RETRIEVAL FLUENCY > RAPID PICTURE NAMING & PICTURE VOCABULARY
…difficulty with specificity of word retrieval (finding a specific word)
RETRIEVAL FLUENCY & PICTURE VOCABULARY > RAPID PICTURE NAMING
…difficulty with automaticity of word retrieval (finding a specific word fast) Picture Vocabulary & Rapid Picture Naming > Retrieval Fluency …difficulty with self-generation of multiple responses …lack of strategy use in generating multiple responses (e.g., thinking of animals by habitat)
Sound Blending Sound Awareness Incomplete Words
Phonemic awareness
Trainable skills (SB, SA) Directly related to basic reading skills (SB, SA) Requires advanced skills (deletion, substitution, transposition, reversal) (SA)
Less trainable skill (IW) Less well-established relation to reading skills (IW) Requires more basic skills (blending) (SB)
Sound Blending & Sound Awareness > Incomplete Words …weakness in auditory closure (Consider possibility of prior training in phonemic awareness with lesser innate ability) Low Sound Blending and Sound Awareness …undeveloped phonemic awareness skills
SOUND BLENDING > SOUND AWARENESS …difficulties with more advanced phonemic awareness skills (depends on age of student) (Informally check ability to segment words into sounds; analyze errors on SA for level of breakdown)
Sound Blending Require speech Perception of Detection of speech Sound Blending, Sound Awareness > Auditory Attention
Sound Awareness Auditory Attention
sound discrimination
individual speech sounds and sequence (intentional) (SB, SA) Stimuli presented in quiet conditions (SB, SA)
sounds (automatic) (AA) Stimuli presented in adverse auditory condition (AA)
or all low …poor hearing acuity and/or speech discrimination
Concept Formation Analysis-Synthesis
Problem solving with new procedures Logical reasoning Learning task with corrective feedback Increase in complexity
Analysis of multiple attributes of a problem to infer the rule governing its organization (inductive logic) (CF) Ability to hold many pieces of information in mind at once (simultaneous processing) (CF) Rule changes with each problem (CF)
Use of given rules (i.e., a code) to solve a problem (deductive logic) (AS) Ability to move step by step through a mental process (sequential processing) (AS) Rules and method of solution (use of code) stay constant (AS)
Analysis-Synthesis > Concept Formation …limited ability to hold in awareness and work with multiple attributes of a problem simultaneously …limited flexibility in problem solving Concept Formation > Analysis-Synthesis …difficulty with application of rules or procedures
Concept Formation Applied Problems
Ability to hold and work with multiple elements of a problem Ability to apply inductive reasoning, including categorization of critical elements
Minimal need for knowledge of numeric concepts and procedures (CF)
Strong need for knowledge of numeric concepts and procedures (AP)
Concept Formation & Applied Problems low …weakness in basic reasoning and conceptual foundation for math, contributing to inability to see the logical relationships among the elements Concept Formation > Applied Problems …limited math knowledge, but good reasoning (Check amount and type of prior instruction)
Analysis-Synthesis Calculation
Application of rules and procedures
Minimal need for knowledge of numeric concepts and procedures (AS)
Strong need for knowledge of numeric concepts and procedures (C)
ANALYSIS-SYNTHESIS & CALCULATION LOW …weakness in procedural knowledge and difficulty with application of rules
Deductive reasoning
Analysis-Synthesis > Calculation …weakness in procedural knowledge and skills despite ability to follow a procedure and use deductive reasoning(Check amount and type of prior instruction)
Visual Matching Decision Speed Pair Cancellation
Rapid visual scanning Rapid visual processing Response mode
Picture stimuli (DS, PC)
Number/symbol stimuli (VM)
Visual Matching, Decision Speed, & Pair Cancellation all low …difficulty with visual scanning (Consider ocular-motor functioning) …slow processing speed DECISION SPEED & PAIR CANCELLATION > VISUAL
MATCHING …poor symbol discrimination …lack of familiarity with numbers
Visual Matching Numbers Reversed Auditory Working Memory Calculation Math Fluency
Inclusion of numbers in test content
Numbers held in memory (NR, AWM) Numbers used for non-mathematical purpose (NR, AWM, VM)
Numbers constant on page (VM, C, MF) Requires math knowledge (C, MF)
Visual Matching, Calculation, Math Fluency > Numbers Reversed, Auditory Working Memory …weakness in working memory …difficulty with mental visualization of numbers (Analyze items on AWM to see if errors were solely, or mostly, on repetition of numbers, rather than things.) Visual Matching, Numbers Reversed, Auditory Working Memory > Calculation, Math Fluency …limited knowledge and/or ability to apply math concepts and procedures
Memory for Words Numbers Reversed Auditory Working Memory
Short-term memory of unrelated stimuli (i.e., single words, numbers)
Number stimuli (NR, AWM) Higher demands on working memory (NR, AWM)
Word stimuli (MW, AWM) Lower demands on working memory (MW)
All low …weakness in short-term memory Memory for Words > Numbers Reversed (& Auditory Working Memory—problem solely with number repetition) …difficulty visualizing numbers Memory for Words > Numbers Reversed > Auditory Working Memory …difficulty in working memory corresponding to task complexity
Understanding Directions
Comprehension of meaningful
Critical elements share a meaningful linguistic
Critical elements are minimally related by
ORAL COMPREHENSION & STORY RECALL > UNDERSTANDING DIRECTIONS
Story Recall Oral Comprehension
sentences context (SR, OC) Comprehension and memory of syntax supported by meaning (SR, OC) Mode of response: verbal: single word (OC) verbal: phrases, sentences (SR)
meaning (UD) Comprehension and short-term memory of syntax not supported by meaning (UD) Mode of response: pointing, nonverbal (UD)
…difficulty holding critical elements in memory outside of a cohesive meaningful context …difficulty comprehending and/or holding in memory complex syntax and multiple linguistic concepts (e.g., spatial, temporal, conditional) Understanding Directions & Oral Comprehension > Story Recall …weakness in organization of story elements in memory
Oral Comprehension Story Recall Passage Comprehension
Comprehension of connected discourse
Oral stimuli (listening) (OC, SR)
Written stimuli (reading) (PC)
Oral Comprehension & Story Recall > Passage Comprehension …difficulty with reading decoding
ALL LOW …limited comprehension of oral language
Word Attack Letter-Word Identification Reading Fluency Passage Comprehension
Require skills in word attack and sight word acquisition
Reading decoding (WA, LWI, RF, PC)
Reading comprehension (RF, PC)
Word Attack & Letter-Word Identification > Passage Comprehension …poor reading comprehension (RF might be strong or weak) Word Attack > Letter-Word Identification, Retrieval Fluency, Passage Comprehension …poor sight word acquisition impairs fluency and comprehension. Letter-Word Identification > Word Attack …limited word attack skills creates dependence on whole word reading (may limit future sight word acquisition)
ALL LOW …limited decoding (word attack and sight words) as a major factor in weak fluency and comprehension
Calculation Math Fluency
Require accurate retrieval of math facts
Knowledge of algorithms (C) Knowledge of simple
Applied Problems > Calculation & Math Fluency …weakness in procedural knowledge but good reasoning (Look for inefficient and compensatory strategies)
Applied Problems Require under-standing of basic math concepts
facts (MF) Math reasoning (AP)
Math Fluency & Calculation > Applied Problems …weakness in math reasoning Calculation > Math Fluency, Applied Problems, Quantitative Concepts …substitution of inefficient strategies for procedural knowledge and facts produces average or better score. (Consider limited understanding of foundational concepts in math, procedural knowledge, and acquired math knowledge.) All low …weakness in foundational concepts in math, procedural knowledge, and acquired math knowledge
TEST COMPARISONS AND ERROR PATTERN ANALYSIS
GENERAL
If significant discrepancies exist between or among the individual test scores within a
factor or cluster, report performance on the narrow abilities and, using task analysis and other
test results, attempt to explain the reason for the difference between the scores. As well,
consider how this information may alter your interpretation or use of the factor/cluster score.
Example case: Alyssa’s Cognitive Fluency cluster score falls in the Low Average range,
with Decision Speed in the Average range and Retrieval Fluency and Rapid Picture
Naming in the Very Low range. Using these and other test results, the evaluator
determines that Alyssa has a specific problem in word retrieval, a weakness limited to
language tasks and, for the most part, expressive language tasks. Although weak word
retrieval certainly can inhibit cognitive fluency, the evaluator must determine the
meaning of the broad score--if it continues to describe general cognitive fluency or if a
distinction should be made between fluency in verbal versus nonverbal processes.
Analyze the task demands of the tests administered to the student relative to the quality of
her performance. Look for any similarities between/among the task demands and subskills
required by the tests on which the student performed well as well as similarities between/among
the tests on which she performed poorly. Similarly, compare the differences between the task
demands and subskills required on the tests on which she did well compared to the tests on
which she did poorly. Examine also, the types of errors made on test items, whether a pattern of
errors exists, and strategies the student used as substitutes for the correct ones. Based on these
comparisons, attempt to determine the narrow abilities that appear strong throughout testing and
those that appear weak. [For examples, see Score Descriptions and Levels of Interpretive
Information, Level 1: Qualitative: Task Analysis and Comparisons of Selected Tests.]
When making determinations about cognitive and/or academic strengths and weaknesses,
check both the standardized scores and the Relative Performance Indices. Both provide valuable,
and different, information. For making recommendations about the instructional level of the
materials, refer to the Instructional Zone band on the WJ III ACH. This band provides an
estimate of an easy level to a difficult level. The Grade Equivalent is in the center of the Zone.
Note any behavioral changes in response to tests with different formats, subject areas, or
response requirements. For example, compare the student’s attitude, persistence, and level of
cooperation on timed versus untimed measures, oral versus written measures, cognitive versus
academic tests, and in various skill areas (e.g., reading versus math). A pattern of behavior
change may provide clues as to task demands that are easy and those, which are difficult.
MEMORY
Compare performance on associative memory tests that require both visual and auditory
associations (e.g., Visual-Auditory Learning) to those that require only auditory memory (e.g.,
Memory for Words).
Compare performance on working memory tests (e.g., Numbers Reversed and Auditory Working
Memory) to performance on tests that measure memory span (e.g., Memory for Words). If
performance on memory span tests is higher, consider that the student may have more difficulty
with divided attention than with rote sequential memory.
If performance is low on tests of meaningful memory (e.g., Story Recall, Understanding
Directions), consider the effect of the student’s level of acquired knowledge and language
development on performance. Low performance may be more a reflection of lack of experience
and exposure or limited language abilities than of poor memory.
Compare performance on tasks that involve retrieval of old learning (e.g., Picture Vocabulary,
General Information) to those that involve storage and retrieval of new learning (e.g., Visual-
Auditory Learning). High performance on old learning in contrast to low performance on new
learning suggests difficulty with comprehending and/or storing new information.
Compare performance on measures of delayed recall to measures of immediate recall (e.g.,
Visual-Auditory Learning, Story Recall). Check scores to see if material is retained efficiently
over time in comparison to other students who performed similarly on the initial presentation.
Also, compare the student’s responses on initial and delayed recall regarding the number of
elements retained and if the same or different elements were named.
Compare performance on short-term memory tests (e.g., Memory for Words, Numbers
Reversed) to performance on tests that require meaningful memory (e.g., Story Recall,
Understanding Directions). Check to see if memory improves when information is more
contextual. The elements in Story Recall are presented with more context than those in
Understanding Directions.
COGNITIVE/ACADEMIC FLUENCY/PROCESSING SPEED
If Reading Fluency, Math Fluency, and Writing Fluency are all low, compare the Academic
Fluency cluster score to the Processing Speed and Cognitive Fluency cluster scores to determine
whether the student has a generalized slow speed of processing or is only slow when tasks
involve printed material.
Compare performance on tasks involving rapid visual scanning (e.g., Visual Matching, Pair
Cancellation) to those involving rapid word retrieval (e.g., Rapid Picture Naming). If all are low,
consider that slow naming was secondary to slow scanning of the pictures. If visual scanning is
fast and picture naming is slow, the problem is more likely in naming speed or word retrieval.
If all tests requiring rapid visual scanning of symbols and pictures are low (e.g., Visual
Matching, Pair Cancellation, Reading Fluency), consider the possibility of visual or ocular-motor
problems. Other behaviors that may indicate ocular-motor problems include losing the place,
skipping lines, and using a finger or pencil to aid in tracking along a line.
Note on Visual Matching whether the student matches one or more transposed numbers (e.g., 16
and 61), or skips line. These behaviors suggest inefficiency with scanning and may be related to
problems with efficient processing of print.
ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD)/BEHAVIOR
Do not assume that strong performance on the tests of the Executive Processes cluster or Broad
Attention cluster is a contraindication of ADHD. Although the student may have the cognitive
abilities to discern rules, shift mindset, plan a task, ignore visual distracters and, in general,
effectively manage the task demands of the other tests in the clusters during the test session, she
may not be able to consistently apply them in practical situations. ADHD does not assume that
these abilities are deficient—only that the affected person is not able to regulate her use
volitionally and consistently.
Note difficulties with attention span, impulsive responses, lack of persistence, high activity level
and other behaviors indicative of ADHD that might affect test performance. Low scores on tests
in which the student displays these behaviors may be more indicative of lack of considered
thought than of a weakness in the skills being assessed.
Note the tests during which a student’s ADHD-like behaviors increase. These may be the tests
requiring skills that are most difficult for the student.
Review observations from the Test Session Observation Checklist. Target behaviors of concern
to explore in more depth.
Note whether any behaviors or attitude adversely affected the student’s performance (e.g., low
frustration tolerance, poor attention, lack of persistence, impulsive responses, resentment towards
testing) and note the possible effect in test results (e.g., “The student’s low frustration tolerance
appeared to affect his effort in the test situation. If he did not know an answer immediately, he
refused to try to think it through and would not respond to encouragement. Consequently, his
current scores may be an underestimation of his true abilities”).
Record any comments the student makes indicating affective responses to tasks (e.g., “I hate
math.”), comments regarding school in general or any aspect of school (e.g., “The teacher always
picks on me”), and comments about himself as a learner (e.g., “I never remember that,” “I’m
always the last one finished”).
ORAL LANGUAGE
Although the tests of the WJ III are not sufficient to diagnose a primary language disorder,
judicious comparisons of test results can provide strong indications as to generalized and specific
language problems that would necessitate a referral to a Speech-Language Pathologist.
Compare the student’s performance on Verbal Comprehension to Reading Vocabulary. If Verbal
Comprehension and Reading Vocabulary are both low, consider that the student’s limited oral
vocabulary also limits his reading vocabulary. If the student’s score on the oral test is high and
the reading test low, consider that weak decoding skills prevent the student from demonstrating
his word knowledge. In either case, check Picture Vocabulary, Letter-Word Identification, and
Word Attack for additional diagnostic information.
Compare the student’s responses on Story Recall, Writing Samples, and Writing Fluency as
informal measures of sentence formulation. Behaviors on Story Recall that might indicate
difficulties in this area include responses that indicate knowledge of the content but are poorly
organized and unclear. Indicative behaviors on Writing Samples include omissions of key words
and sentence structure that is particularly simple (on the higher items) or has sufficiently
awkward syntax to obscure the meaning of the sentence.
Compare the student’s performance on tests of oral vocabulary (e.g., Verbal Comprehension,
Picture Vocabulary) to tests of oral comprehension of connected discourse (e.g., Oral
Comprehension, Story Recall, Understanding Directions). If vocabulary is significantly better
than discourse comprehension, consider a weakness in comprehension of syntax and/or linguistic
concepts. Serious weaknesses in short-term memory might also contribute to difficulties with
comprehension.
Consider that limited oral vocabulary and background knowledge can be caused by limited
reading experiences, especially from middle school on. If the student has poor basic reading
skills, she is not reading, or comprehending, sufficient text from which to learn new words and
information at the same rate as her age- or grade-peers.
Consider that the student may have a primary language disorder if all oral language tests are low
(Verbal Comprehension, Picture Vocabulary, Sound Blending, Retrieval Fluency, Story Recall,
Oral Comprehension, Understanding Directions) but tests that involve minimal oral language
(e.g., simple instructions along with pictures) are higher (e.g., Spatial Relations, Visual
Matching, Numbers Reversed, Picture Recognition, Decision Speed). Poor short-term memory
for linguistic information (e.g., Memory for Words) is also likely to be low. Acquisition of
academic knowledge, reading comprehension, and written expression are based on primary
language ability and so are also likely to be low.
Compare the student’s performance on Picture Vocabulary, Retrieval Fluency, and Rapid Picture
Naming--all relatively simple tasks that require the student to retrieve known words from long-
term storage. If the student performs well on Picture Vocabulary but poorly on Rapid Picture
Naming, consider a problem with word retrieval. Although both require retrieval of a specific
word, only Rapid Picture Naming has a time constraint, increasing the need for automaticity of
response. Although low Retrieval Fluency may reinforce the possibility of a word retrieval
problem, average performance would not exclude it. Because Retrieval Fluency allows a broader
range of acceptable responses, it may not be as sensitive as Rapid Picture Naming. Difficulty
with both Rapid Picture Naming and Retrieval Fluency also could be related to speed of
processing.
PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS TO PRINT
Keep in mind that the progression of phonological awareness is developmental. Generally, the
progression is as follows:
• preschool: segmenting sentences into words;
• preschool to kindergarten: rhyming;
• kindergarten: segmenting words into syllables and deleting syllables
• grade 1: blending, segmenting, deleting, and adding phonemes;
• grades 1-2: manipulation (e.g., substitution, transposition) of phonemes.
Many children are not able to perform the types of phoneme manipulation tasks measured in the
WJ III Sound Awareness test until the end of second grade.
If Auditory Attention, Incomplete Words, Sound Blending, Sound Awareness, and Spelling of
Sounds are all significantly weak, note whether or not the student had difficulty on the training
items of Auditory Attention as well as during the noise condition. If so, and if she has not had a
recent hearing test, request a screening for hearing acuity and speech discrimination to rule out a
hearing loss. If these abilities are intact, consider a central auditory processing disorder. Look for
other indications of misperceptions of speech or problems interpreting speech in compromised
acoustic environments.
If a student has low performance on Sound Blending, determine if she can segment words into
phonemes. Ask her to count the number of sounds that she hears in various words. Include words
she can spell but in which the number of letters does not match the number of sounds (e.g., fox
[4], cow [2]). If she also has difficulty on this type of task, recommend instruction in blending
(synthesizing sounds) and segmenting (analyzing sounds).
If Incomplete Words is significantly lower than Sound Blending, consider the nature of the
instructional program. Whereas reading instruction may help to develop the student’s ability to
blend sounds, it is less likely to develop the auditory closure ability measured by Incomplete
Words.
Although Sound Awareness gives only a total score, analyze performance on the four subtests.
Determine if the student’s performance differs on rhyming tasks versus sound manipulation tasks
to get a sense of the level at which the student’s phonological abilities are breaking down.
Some individuals have trouble learning to rhyme but can learn to blend and segment sounds. If a
student has difficulty with rhyming, as well as with the other tasks on Sound Awareness, check
performance on the Sound Blending test to see if he may have developed some of the
intermediate phonological awareness skills.
Phonological awareness abilities can be developed through carefully planned instruction. In
interpreting assessment results, consider how the current or past method of instruction may have
affected scores measuring this ability rather than assuming that the student developed these
abilities through incidental learning.
Before deciding that a student has a weakness in orthographic processing (i.e., recall of spelling
patterns), make sure that phonological awareness skills are developed. Phonological awareness
provides the foundation on which orthographic coding skills can be built.
Students who speak English as a second language may misperceive some English phonemes and
obtain low scores on measures of phonological awareness. These low scores may be more a
reflection of their limited familiarity with English language phonemes, rather than poor
phonological awareness.
The most critical phonemic awareness abilities for decoding and encoding are blending and
segmentation. When writing recommendations, place greater emphasis on teaching these abilities
than on teaching rhyming.
Compare performance on phonological awareness tests to performance on phoneme/grapheme
knowledge tests (Word Attack, Spelling of Sounds). If phonological awareness is significantly
higher than phoneme/grapheme knowledge, recommend instruction in letter/sound relationships
(phonics). If performance is low on both, recommend activities to build phonological awareness,
as well as procedures to build phoneme/grapheme knowledge.
If analysis of Sound Awareness indicates good rhyming ability but a weakness in manipulating
phonemes within words, and Sound Blending is low, the student may benefit from a word family
approach to reading instruction while learning the more complex phonological awareness skills
that will enable her to make better use of phonics.
Before recommending phonological awareness training for older students with reading
disabilities, make sure that their problems are not related to the orthographic features of words
(recalling letter patterns) rather than to the phonological features. If the student sequences sounds
correctly on the Spelling of Sounds and Spelling tests (even though the word may be misspelled),
instruction in phonological awareness is probably unnecessary. The following performance
patterns may indicate that instruction should instead be directed to mastery of common English
spelling patterns:
• spellings on Spelling of Sounds, Spelling, and Writing Samples that are phonically
accurate (correct sound-symbol correspondence) but violate spelling rules and include
letter combinations that are unlikely in written English (kw instead of qu);
• attempts to sound out words phonetically that would normally be recognized as sight
words (e.g., was);
• scores on Sound Blending and Sound Awareness are average or better but Letter-Word
Identification, Word Attack, Reading Fluency and Spelling are weak. Word Attack may
be higher if the student has developed phoneme-grapheme correspondence.
BASIC READING AND WRITING SKILLS
Record errors on both the Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack tests for later error
analysis. Attempt to discern patterns of performance , such as the student is able to identify
initial and final sounds, but struggles with medial vowel sounds.
If Letter-Word Identification is higher than Word Attack, the student may be depending on sight
word recognition rather than phonics skills. Determine whether or not the student has a weakness
in phonological processing that may be contributing to poor phonics skills.
Compare Reading Fluency to Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack. If all are low,
consider that poor basic reading skills are preventing the development of fluency.
If the student demonstrates weaknesses on basic reading skills, check her performance on the
tests of phonological awareness to determine if weak phonological awareness is contributing to
weak basic reading skills. If the results are inconclusive, consider administering a standardized
test of phonological awareness skills that also includes tests of rapid automatized naming.
Compare performance on Spelling and Spelling of Sounds. Check to see whether or not the
student has mastered spellings of high frequency words.
Compare performance on Spelling of Sounds to Word Attack. Check to see that the student can
use grapheme/phoneme correspondences for both spelling and pronouncing nonwords.
Review errors on the Editing and Punctuation and Capitalization tests. Make a list of the rules
that the student knows and does not know.
On Editing, make a note of whether or not the student is able to detect the error, even if he
cannot correct it.
READING COMPREHENSION
Review the errors items on the Reading Fluency test. By analyzing other tests, determine
whether errors indicate weak word reading skills or poor literal reading comprehension.
Consider performance on Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack to determine whether or
not poor decoding skill is affecting reading comprehension. If decoding skill is adequate but
reading comprehension scores are low, check to see if limited knowledge and weak oral
language abilities are contributing factors.
Notice if the student attempts to maintain meaning on items on the Passage Comprehension test.
Analyze errors on Passage Comprehension to see if the student’s answers are syntactically
correct. If many error items are not syntactically correct, consider the possibility of a problem in
comprehension of oral syntax.
Record any oral reading errors on the Reading Vocabulary test. Attempt to determine if a low
score is more a reflection of weak word identification skills or limited vocabulary.
Consider performance on Academic Knowledge, General Information, and the oral vocabulary
tests. Limited background knowledge or vocabulary may be the reason for poor reading
comprehension.
Compare performance on Passage Comprehension to Oral Comprehension and Reading
Vocabulary to Verbal Comprehension to see if a difference exists between comprehension of
written versus oral text. In general, high correlations exist between these measures unless the
student is having trouble with basic reading skills. In secondary and postsecondary students,
reading comprehension may be higher than listening comprehension because in written text,
language is visible and the memory demands decrease.
Compare results on the Reading Fluency and Passage Comprehension tests to tasks that involve
processing of higher-level discourse.
WRITTEN EXPRESSION
Compare performance on Writing Samples to measures and observations of oral language
abilities. Attempt to determine if the quality of written expression is similar to oral expression.
Compare performance on Writing Samples and Writing Fluency to determine if a difference
exists between writing speed and ideation.
Compare the syntactic complexity of the sentences produced on Writing Samples and Writing
Fluency. Determine if the student is able to write both short, simple sentences, as well as longer,
more complex, sentences with more content.
Analyze spelling on Writing Samples and compare to performance on Spelling and Spelling of
Sounds. See if spelling performance deteriorates when the student has to focus on and integrate
many aspects of writing.
Analyze the student’s use of punctuation and capitalization on Writing Samples. Compare to
Editing to see if the student knows the rules and can correct errors when she does not have to
write but cannot formulate a sentence, retrieve spellings, execute the mechanical act of writing,
and attend to punctuation, capitalization, and usage simultaneously.
Compare performance on Writing Fluency to performance on Reading Fluency and Math
Fluency to determine if the student has a similar rate on all timed measures.
HANDWRITING
Use the Handwriting Elements Checklist to evaluate and record the specific factors affecting
legibility: slant, spacing, size, horizontal alignment, letter formation, and line quality. List the
elements that need improvement.
Compare the student’s performance on Writing Fluency, a timed test, to performance on Writing
Samples and Spelling. Writing Fluency is most indicative of a student’s fastest handwriting,
whereas Writing Samples and Spelling represent handwriting under typical writing conditions. If
the student writes legibly on the Writing Samples and Spelling tests, conclude that handwriting is
adequate under typical conditions.
For older students (middle school and up), writing rate has more of an effect on writing skill than
does poor quality of handwriting. If a student has a compromised writing rate, specific
accommodations are often necessary.
Check to see whether or not a student struggling with handwriting has developed keyboarding
skill. If not, recommend instruction in word processing.
If the student evidences significantly poor quality of manuscript (print) handwriting, observe her
as she writes. Note if the strokes she uses to make her letters are made in the correct sequence
and if the direction of the strokes is correct (generally left to right, top to bottom). Multiple errors
of this type impede the development of writing fluency and automaticity.
Note the student’s pencil grip as she writes. An awkward or particularly odd grip could indicate
weakness in the fine muscles of the hand.
Note the student’s posture as she writes. An extreme tilt of the head to one side or the other may
indicate inefficient visual functioning such as the suppression of one eye. After the test, ask the
student about her ability to see the paper and the reason for turning her head.
Note how the student uses her non-writing hand (e.g., steadies her paper, supports her chin).
MATHEMATICS
General.
If the student has particular difficulty with visual-motor coordination and spatial organization of
numbers on the page, as she works through a computation problem, the increasing visual
confusion may lead to errors. When testing is completed, distinguish between math difficulty and
visual confusion resulting from poorly lined up and sloppy numbers. Ask the student to dictate
the solution to a problem similar to one that she got wrong while you write for her.
If the student is slow on tests of Processing Speed (especially Visual Matching) and Math
Fluency, and makes many errors on Calculation, and Applied Problems, consider that slow
processing may have impeded the development of automaticity of math facts and procedures,
thus leaving little cognitive attention available for more complex application of those skills.
If the student has difficulty with all math tests as well as Numbers Reversed and Visual
Matching, analyze Auditory Working Memory to see if she had difficulty with only the numbers
but not the “things.” If so, consider that she may have specific difficulty visualizing and working
with number symbols.
Math Fluency.
Analyze the student’s errors on Math Fluency. Many incorrect responses may indicate a
weakness in understanding the operations, inattention to the operation signs, and/or poor fact
knowledge; correct but few answers may indicate lack of automaticity.
Compare performance on Math Fluency to Calculation to see if low performance in basic skills
is a result of delayed automaticity with math facts and/or limited procedural knowledge.
Compare results on Math Fluency to tests of Reading and Writing Fluency to determine whether
or not performance on all timed academic tests are similar.
Calculation.
Errors are often rule-governed. The student misunderstands the rule, misapplies the rule, or has
made up a rule for herself. Analyze errors on Calculation and on Applied Problems to attempt to
determine why she made errors on specific items. If needed, ask her to solve a similar problem
and explain her procedure as she does so.
Example case: The student attempts to solve 7x13 (in a vertical format) and comes up
with an answer of 22. Verbalizing her procedure, she said, “7 times 3 is 21.” She then
pointed to the 1 in the 13 and said, “Add the one and that’s 22.” Her process indicates
that she did not understand the problem as 7 groups of 13.
Consider that the student may obtain an average or better score on Calculation without having
the grade-expected skills. If the student has used a variety of inefficient processes (e.g., counting
on fingers, repeated addition instead of multiplication) to compensate for lack of procedural
(e.g., use of algorithms) or conceptual (e.g., place value) knowledge and math information (e.g.,
units of measurement equivalencies), report the difference between her score and her proficiency
as well as her areas of difficulty.
Applied Problems.
Attempt to determine reasons for a low score on Applied Problems (e.g., poor basic skills,
difficulty sequencing multiple steps, word problem structure, language processing difficulties, or
poor mathematical reasoning).
Analyze the student’s errors on Applied Problems to see if she understands the logical structure
of a problem but does not know how to use the appropriate procedure.
Example case: The student is given the problem: “12 people each have 25 cents to spend.
How much money do they have altogether?” She writes a column of twelve 25s with an
addition sign and then tries to add them. She understands the logic of the problem and
can reason out how to solve it but either does not know that multiplication is the more
efficient operation to use or does not know the procedure.
If the student has difficulty with Applied Problems but Calculation appears adequate, check her
performance on Concept Formation to see whether or not she has difficulty working with
multiple elements of a problem simultaneously and abstracting the superordinate features.
Quantitative Concepts.
Analyze the errors on Quantitative Concepts to see if the student does not understand math
terminology and concepts or if she is not able to discern the relationships among numbers.
If the student is having difficulty with discerning number patterns, see if the level at which she
breaks down gives you any information about her flexibility with number relationships.
Case example: The student can respond correctly as long as the increment between
numbers is static (e.g., 6-9-12…) but has difficulty when the increment changes within a
pattern (e.g., 6-9-13-18…).
Specific Math Disorders.
Consider that the student who has good language, fluid reasoning, and working memory,
ascertains the logical structure of word problems, differentiates relevant from extraneous
information, and selects the appropriate operations, but becomes confused while working
through the computation, may have a procedural math disorder. A procedural disorder is
characterized by “…relatively frequent use of developmentally immature procedures, frequent
errors in the execution of procedures, potential developmental delay in the understanding of the
concepts underlying procedural use, and difficulties sequencing the multiple steps in complex
procedures” (Geary, 2000, p.6).
If the student has limited ability to retrieve math facts, the math facts she does retrieve are
frequently wrong, her error responses are associated with the numbers in the problem, and the
solution times for correct retrieval are not systematic, consider the possibility of a mathematical
disorder in semantic memory. This disorder appears to occur with phonologically-based reading
disorders (Geary, 2000, p.6).
If the student has difficulty with spatial representation of numerical information (e.g.,
misalignment of numbers, number reversals), misinterpretation of numerical information related
to position (e.g., place value errors), and, possibly, has difficulties in other areas of math that
depend on spatial abilities (e.g., geometry), consider a visuospatial mathematical disorder
(Geary, 2000, p.6).
Table 1-6. Average Grade Placement for Age
YRS-MOS
AVERAGE
GRADE PLACEMENT
YRS-MOS
AVERAGE
GRADE PLACEMENT
YRS-MOS
AVERAGE
GRADE PLACEMENT
5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9
9-10 9-11
4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5
14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5
8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.0
5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-11
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6
10-0 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5
4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1
14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.10 14.11
9.1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.4
6-0 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5
0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9
10-10 10-11
5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5
15-0 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-5
9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0
6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11
1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5
11-0 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-5
5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
15-6 15-7 15-8 15-9
15-10 15-11
10.1 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.4
7-0 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5
1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
11-6 11-7 11-8 11-9
11-10 11-11
6.1 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.4
16-0 16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4 16-5
10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 11.0 11.1
7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-10 7-11
2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5
12-0 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5
6.5 6..7 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0
16-6 16-7 16-8 16-9
16-10 16-11
11.2 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6
8-0 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5
2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1
12-6 12-7 12-8 12-9 12-10 12-11
7.1 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.4
17-0 17-1 17-2 17-3 17-4 17-5
11.8 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3
8-6 8-7 8-8 8-9 8-10 8-11
3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5
13-0 13-1 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5
7.5 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1
17-6 17-7 17-8 17-9
17-10 17-11
12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9
9-0 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5
3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1
13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 13-10 13-11
8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.4
From: Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (p. 120). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Table 1-7. Score Equivalents and Classification Labels
WJ III Classif.
Deviation IQ Score
%ile Rank
Z Score
Scaled Score
T Score
GRE-like Score
Wechsler Classif. Score Mean SD
145 19 Deviation IQ 100 15 140 18 Percentile 50 NA 135 99 2.33 17 73 733 Z score 0.00 1.00
Very Superior
131 98 2.05 71 705 Scaled score 10 3 130 16
Very Superior
T score 50 10 128 97 1.88 69 688 GRE-like score 500 100 126 96 1.75 68 675 125 95 1.64 15 66 664 123 94 1.55 66 655 122 93 1.48 65 648
Superior
121 92 1.41 64 641 120 91 1.34 14 63 634
Superior
119 90 1.28 63 628 118 89 1.22 62 622 118 88 1.18 62 618 117 87 1.13 61 613 116 86 1.08 61 608 116 85 1.04 60 604 115 84 0.99 13 60 599 114 83 0.95 60 595 114 82 0.91 59 591 113 81 0.88 59 588 113 80 0.84 58 584 112 79 0.80 58 580 112 78 0.77 58 577 111 77 0.74 57 574
High Average
111 76 0.71 57 571 110 75 0.67 12 57 567 110 74 0.64 12 56 56.4 110 73 0.61 12 56 561
High Average
109 72 0.58 56 558 108 71 0.55 56 555 108 70 0.52 55 552 107 69 0.49 55 549 107 68 0.47 55 547 107 67 0.44 54 544 106 66 0.41 54 541 106 65 0.39 54 539 105 64 0.36 11 54 536 105 63 0.33 11 53 533 105 62 0.31 11 53 531 104 61 0.28 53 528 104 60 0.25 53 525 104 59 0.23 52 523
Average
103 58 0.20 52 520
Average
103 57 0.18 52 518 102 56 0.15 52 515 102 55 0.12 51 512 102 54 0.10 51 510 101 53 0.07 51 507 101 52 0.05 51 505 100 51 0.03 10 50 503 100 50 0.00 10 50 500 100 49 -0.03 10 50 497 99 48 -0.05 49 495 99 47 -0.07 49 493 98 46 -0.10 49 490 98 45 -0.12 49 488 98 44 -0.15 48 485 97 43 4.18 48 482 97 42 -0.20 48 430 96 41 -0.23 48 477 96 40 -0.25 47 475 96 39 -0.28 47 472 95 38 -0.31 9 47 469 95 37 -0.33 9 47 467 95 36 -0.36 9 46 464 94 35 -0.39 46 461 94 34 -0.41 46 459 93 33 -0.44 46 456 93 32 -0.47 45 453 93 31 -0.49 45 451 92 30 -0.52 45 448 92 29 -0.55 44 445 91 28 -0.58 44 442 90 27 -0.61 8 44 439 90 26 -0-64 8 44 436
90 25 -0.67 8 43 433
89 24 -0.71 43 429 89 23 -0.74 43 426 88 22 -0.77 42 423 88 21 -0.80 42 420 87 20 -0.94 42 416 87 19 -0.88 41 412 86 18 -0.91 41 409 86 17 -0.95 40 405 85 16 -0-99 7 40 401 84 15 -1-04 40 396 84 14 -1.08 39 392 83 13 -1.13 39 387 82 12 -1-18 38 382 82 11 -1.22 38 378 81 10 -1.28 37 372
Low Average
80 9 -1.34 6 37 366
Low Average
79 8 -1.41 36 359 78 7 -1.48 35 352 77 6 -1.55 34 345
Low
75 5 -1.64 5 34 336
Borderline
74 4 -1.75 32 325 72 3 -1.88 31 312 70 2 4 69 1 -2.05 29 295 65 -2.33 3 27 267 60 2
Very Low
55 1
Intellectually Deficient
Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Clusters/Tests Score Profile
Name ____________________ Scores based on: Grade ____ Age ____ norms Date of Birth ___________ Type of Score: SS___ %ile___ RPI___ Grade___ Age___
Category/Factor Score STANDARD BATTERY SCORE EXTENDED
BATTERY SCORE
Verbal Comprehension General Information
Visual-Auditory Learning Retrieval Fluency
Spatial Relations Picture Recognition Sound Blending Auditory Attention Concept Formation Analysis-Synthesis Visual Matching Decision Speed
General Intellectual Ability (Std. & Ext.)
Numbers Reversed Memory for Words Verbal Comprehension
Concept Formation
Intellectual Ability
Brief Intellectual Ability
Visual Matching Verbal Ability (Std & Ext) Verbal
Comprehension General Information
Visual-Auditory Learning Retrieval Fluency
Spatial Relations Picture Recognition Sound Blending Auditory Attention
Thinking Ability (Std & Ext)
Concept Formation Analysis-Synthesis Visual Matching Decision Speed
Cognitive Performance
Cognitive Efficiency (Std & Ext)
Numbers Reversed Memory for Words Comprehension-Knowledge Verbal
Comprehension General Information
Long-Term Retrieval Visual-Auditory Learning Retrieval Fluency
Visual-Spatial Thinking Spatial Relations Picture Recognition Auditory Processing Sound Blending Auditory Attention Fluid Reasoning Concept Formation Analysis-Synthesis Processing Speed Visual Matching Decision Speed
CHC Factors
Short-Term Memory Numbers Reversed Memory for Words
Sound Blending [Sound Awareness] Phonemic Awareness Incomplete Words Numbers Reversed
Working Memory Auditory Working Memory
Numbers Reversed Auditory Attention Broad Attention Auditory Working
Memory Pair Cancellation
Retrieval Fluency Decision Speed
Clinical Clusters
Cognitive Fluency Rapid Picture Naming Concept Formation Planning Executive Processes Pair Cancellation
Visual-Auditory Learning – Delayed
z-score or PR
Delayed Recall
Story Recall –Delayed (ACH)
z-score or PR
General Information
Knowledge Academic Knowledge
(ACH)
Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Achievement: Clusters/Tests Score Profile
Name ____________________ Scores based on: Grade ____ Age ____ norms Date of Birth ___________ Type of Score: SS___ %ile___ RPI___ Grade___ Age___
Areas Clusters Score STANDARD
BATTERY SCORE EXTENDED BATTERY SCORE
Letter-Word Identification
Reading Fluency Broad Reading Passage Comprehension
Basic Reading Skills Letter-Word Identification Word Attack
Reading
Reading Comprehension Passage Comprehension Reading Vocabulary
Story Recall Picture Vocabulary Oral Language Understanding
Directions Oral Comprehension
Listening Comprehension Understanding Directions Oral Comprehension
Oral Language
Oral Expression Story Recall Picture Vocabulary Calculation Math Fluency Broad Math Applied Problems Calculation Math Calculation Skills Math Fluency
Math
Math Reasoning Applied Problems Quantitative Concepts
Spelling
Writing Fluency Broad Written Language
Writing Samples
Basic Writing Skills Spelling Editing
[Punctuation & Capitalization ]
Writing Fluency
Written Language
Written Expression Writing Samples
Academic Knowledge Academic Knowledge
Word Attack Phoneme/Grapheme Knowledge
Spelling of Sounds Letter-Word Identification
Spelling Academic Skills
Calculation Reading Fluency Writing Fluency Academic Fluency Math Fluency Passage Comprehension
Writing Samples
Other Clusters
Academic Applications
Applied Problems Letter-Word Identification
Reading Fluency Passage Comprehension
Spelling Writing Fluency Writing Samples Calculation Math Fluency
Total Achievement
Applied Problems
Story Recall - Delayed
z-score or PR
Sound Awareness Supplemental
Tests/Scores
Handwriting
Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Cluster Descriptions and Scores
Name: ____________________
Grade:__________ Age:__________ Scores based on: Grade ____ Age ____ Norms
Cluster Description SS/PR RPI Level of Proficiency
Comprehension-Knowledge
General information and stores of acquired knowledge
Long-Term Retrieval
Ability to store information efficiently and retrieve it later through associations
Visual-Spatial Thinking
Ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations
Auditory Processing Ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli. Also related to phonological awareness
Fluid Reasoning Ability to reason, form concepts and solve problems that often involve unfamiliar information or procedures
Processing Speed Speed and efficiency in performing automatic or simple cognitive tasks, visual scanning efficiency
Short-Term Memory
Ability to apprehend orally presented information in immediate awareness and use it within a few seconds (memory span and working memory)
Cognitive Fluency Ease and speed by which an individual performs simple to complex cognitive tasks
Executive Processes
Three aspects of executive functioning: strategic planning, proactive interference control, and the ability to shift mental set repeatedly
Phonemic Awareness
Ability to analyze, synthesize, and manipulate speech sounds
Working Memory Ability to hold information in immediate awareness while performing a mental operation on the information
Comments:
Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Achievement: Cluster Descriptions and Scores
Name: ____________________
Grade:__________ Age:__________ Scores based on: Grade ____ Age ____ Norms
Cluster Description SS/PR GE/RPI Level of Proficiency
Broad Reading Reading decoding, reading speed, and using syntactic and semantic cueing systems when reading for meaning
Basic Reading Sight vocabulary, phonics, and structural analysis skills
Broad Math Math achievement including problem solving, number facility, automaticity with facts, and reasoning
Math Calculation Skills
Computational skills and automaticity with math facts
Math Reasoning Problem solving, concepts, and math vocabulary Broad Written Language
Basic writing skills, writing rate, and written expression
Written Expression Quality and fluency of meaningful written sentences
Academic Knowledge
Knowledge of science, social studies, and humanities
Academic Skills Basic academic skills
Academic Fluency Ease and speed by which an individual performs simple to more complex academic tasks
Oral Language Linguistic competency, listening ability, oral comprehension
Comments:
Bell Curve Cluster/Test Comparison Chart
Name: ___________________________ Date: ________________
0.13%
2.15%
13.59%
34.13%
34.13%
13.59%
2.15%
0.13%
Z Scores -4SD -3 SD -2 SD -1 SD Mean +1 SD +2 SD +3 SD +4SD
Standard Score Equivalents
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Percentile Ranks 1 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99
Score Ranges Very Low Low Low Average Average High
Average Superior Very Superior
Cluster / Test
Standard Score Ranges: 131 and above = Very Superior; 121 to 130 = Superior; 111 to 120 = High Average; 90 to 110 = Average; 80 to 89 = Low Average; 70 to 79 = Low; 69 and below = Very Low
Developmental Band Profile Worksheet - WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities
Cognitive Factor / Clusters Cognitive Tests
Developmentally Difficult (weakness)RPI 75/90 & below
Developmentally
Appropriate
Developmentally Easy (strength)
RPI 96/90 & above
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc)
Verbal Comprehension
General Information
(Academic Knowledge--ACH)
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
Visual-Auditory Learning
Retrieval Fluency
Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv)
Spatial Relations
Picture Recognition
Auditory Processing (Ga)
Sound Blending
Auditory Attention
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
Concept Formation
Analysis-Synthesis
Processing Speed (Gs)
Visual Matching (1 or 2)
Decision Speed
Short-Term Memory (Gsm)
Numbers Reversed
Memory for Words
Clinical Clusters
Developmentally Difficult (weakness)
Developmentally Appropriate
Developmentally Easy (strength)
Phonemic Awareness
Sound Blending
Incomplete Words
(Sound Awareness - ACH)
Working Memory
Numbers Reversed
Auditory Working Memory
Broad Attention
Numbers Reversed
Auditory Attention
Pair Cancellation
Auditory Working Memory
Cognitive Fluency
Retrieval Fluency
Decision Speed
Rapid Picture Naming
Executive Processes
Concept Formation
Planning
Pair Cancellation
Cognitive Performance Model Developmentally
Difficult (weakness) Developmentally
Appropriate Developmentally Easy (strength)
Verbal Ability (Std.)
Verbal Comprehension
Verbal Ability (Ext.)
Verbal Comprehension
General Information
Thinking Abilities (Std.)
Visual-Auditory Learning (Glr)
Spatial Relations (Gv)
Sound Blending (Ga)
Concept Formation (Gf)
Thinking Abilities (Ext.)
Visual-Auditory Learning (Glr)
Retrieval Fluency (Glr)
Spatial Relations (Gv)
Picture Recognition (Gv)
Sound Blending (Ga)
Auditory Attention (Ga)
Concept Formation (Gf)
Analysis-Synthesis (Gf)
Cognitive Efficiency (Std.)
Visual Matching (Gs)
Numbers Reversed (Gsm)
Cog. Efficiency (Ext.)
Visual Matching (Gs)
Decision Speed (Gs)
Numbers Reversed (Gsm)
Memory for Words (Gsm) Worksheet Instructions: Use the Developmental Level Bands from the Student’s Compuscore® (Age/Grade Profile Selection in the “Reports” Menu). Place check marks in the appropriate column that shows whether a cluster/test is difficult, developmentally appropriate, or easy. The proficiency level (e.g., limited) can also be represented within each column.
Adapted from EDCS Inc., Barbara Read, Woodstock, VT
Instructional Zone Profile Worksheet - WJ III Tests of Achievement
Achievement Clusters
Achievement Tests
Developmentally Difficult (weakness)RPI 76/90 & below
Developmentally
Appropriate
Developmentally Easy (strength)
RPI 96/90 & above
Broad Reading
Letter-Word Identification
Reading Fluency
Passage Comprehension
Basic Reading
Letter-Word Identification
Word Attack
Reading Comprehension
Passage Comprehension
Reading Vocabulary
Oral Language (Std)
Story Recall
Understanding Direction
Oral Language (Ext)
Story Recall
Understanding Directions
Picture Vocabulary
Oral Comprehension
Oral Expression
Story Recall
Picture Vocabulary
(Academic Knowledge)
(General Information - COG)
Listening Comprehension
Understanding Directions
Oral Comprehension
Broad Written Language
Spelling
Writing Fluency
Writing Samples
Written Expression
Writing Fluency
Writing Samples
Basic Writing Skills
Spelling
Editing
(Punctuation and Capitalization)
(Spelling of Sounds)
Clusters/Tests
Instructionally Difficult (weakness)
Instructionally Appropriate (average)
Instructionally Easy (strength)
Phoneme/Grapheme
Word Attack
Spelling of Sounds
(Sound Awareness)
Broad Math
Math Calculation
Math Fluency
Applied Problems
Basic Math Skills
Math Calculation
Math Fluency
Math Reasoning
Applied Problems
Quantitative Concepts
Cross Academic Clusters
Instructionally Difficult (weakness)
Instructionally Appropriate (average)
Instructionally Easy (strength)
Academic Fluency
Reading Fluency
Writing Fluency
Math Fluency
Academic Skills
Letter-Word Identification
Spelling
Math Calculation
Academic Applications
Passage Comprehension
Applied Problems
Writing Samples Worksheet Instructions: Use the Instructional Range Bands from the Student’s Compuscore® (Age/Grade Profile Selection in the “Reports” Menu). Place check marks in the appropriate column that shows whether a cluster/test is difficult, developmentally appropriate, or easy. The proficiency level (e.g., limited) can also be represented within each column.
Adapted from EDCS Inc., Barbara Read, Woodstock, VT
